Thursday, May 26, 2011

Remember how we told you in this post that there had been some errors in our reports and we were going to retest all of our AIT units to ensure they were screening at safe levels? Well, we’re done, and everything came back just fine. You can see all the reports here just as we promised. You can read a recent Reuters article on the subject and while you’re reading up on the subject, be sure to take a look at an article from the Archives of Internal Medicine, co-authored by a UCSF scientist concluding that there is no significant threat of radiation from the scans.

To put things in perspective, here are some sources of radiation you may not have been aware of:

One year of naturally occurring background radiation: 300 millirem

Annual recommended limit to the public of radiation from man-made sources: 100 millirem

Chest X-ray: 10 millirem

Flight from New York to Los Angeles: 4 millirem

One day of natural background: approximately 1 millirem (corrected 3/16/11 20:56)

Drinking three glasses of water a day for a year: 0.045 millirem

One backscatter X-ray scan: Approximately 0.005 millirem

Blogger BobTSA Blog Team

If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.

That's like the students grading their own tests. If the TSA submits the scanners to independent and verified labs then there may be a real result. Until then, it's just more propaganda. A dozen scientists came out last week citing studies against the scanners. You guys just picked the lab that will get you the results you want.

This is about as safe as the FDA fast tracking a new drug only to recall it after enough people die from it.

New tests of full-body scanners deployed at airports found that the radiation they emit was within acceptable levels, the Transportation Security Administration said on Tuesday after previous checks found some anomalies in results.

WIth the exception of the chest x-ray, none of the exposures you list there are *focused* radiation, and so using them is worthless for comparison purposes. The suns rays falling on 5 square inches of your arm is also harmless until you put a lens in the path. Then that same 5 square inches can burn.

Moreover, until you have tests of units *in the field* by someone *other* than the manufacturer, their subcontractors, etc (i.e. an impartial test), I'm still opting out. Period.

If you are going to link an article, make sure the link actually works. Your link sends your readers to a log-in screen and it seems like your claim merits a look at the article without having to sign up, pay or the like.

You claim that x-ray bckscatter is safe - others disagree, notably the European Parliament.On tuesday 24/05/11 the European Transport and Tourism Committee voted 37 to 2 to ban x-ray body-scanners in all European airports on HEALTH grounds.A final vote will be taken in late June.I know who I would trust and believe on this matter.

BB, do you realize that despite your agency's claims to the contrary, some of the backscatter machines ARE leaking radiation? The data are right in the reports you linked. See: original reports for BOS S51006004 and BOS S51006005, for starters.

As someone currently being educated in science and doing labs, this report is disappointing.

Only when machines that have actually been used at the airports are tested by an independent third party (or multiple, if you'd like to choose one and let someone against them choose one) will a large enough portion of the scientific community accept the TSA's assessment of its own machines.

Where is the experiment published in a scientific journal demonstrating that Backscatter x-rays focused on the skin are safe?

First, we want INDEPENDENT tests, not tests by the company that manufactures the machines.

Second, even if the levels of ionizing radiation are correct, and even if you don't consider the specific body areas where they concentrate, they will still cause cancer on a small number of people (because the number scanned is very high), many more than the number of terrorists caught.

The PDF reports seem to be from Rapidscan. You got the company who MADE the machines to test them to see if they were safe? And they found them safe? Wow, now there is a surprise. Lots of conflict of interest there. You really don't like 3rd party objective observation of your follies and waste.

Yes, thank you to Blogger Bob for sharing the updated information. And thank you for being the 'face' of the TSA in the Blog-o-Sphere. I know it has to be hard to stand up and keep the smile on in the face of such opposition.

And then to TSORon....

"TSORon said...Unfortunately Bob few who post here are going to believe the evidence. They never have before, so there is no reason to suspect they will this time"

No. It is not a question of not believing you simply for the sake of being difficult. I don't believe the results of your testing because you are not following basic scientific testing principals. You are cherry-picking the results that support your view point and disregarding, or dismissing, any contrary evidence or viewpoint.

That is just bad science.

My local airport has a couple of these machines. My local airport 'closes' at about 1 a.m. Why can't some independent scientists schedule some time between 2 and 6 a.m. to field test a 'live' machine? I know that is a strange time of night to be doing this kind of work, but there would be little to no impact to travelers since there are no travelers in the airport that time of night.

And this becomes one of those Win-Win situations.... We, the public, get the Independent and un-biased Scientific Studies on 'Live' Machines. You get to say "Told Ya So" if the results support your side of the debate.

Your repeated junvenile attempts to allay fears of law-abiding taxpaying Americans by supplying partial truths is patronizing at best. The incomptence of your organization is what instigated a need for a re-test of the AIT machines in the first place. Why should we believe you now?

Until the TSA finds a secure, dignified, and safe way to screen taxpaying Americans, you should remove any emblems of this great country from your TSA uniforms. The TSA dishonors our great country by using tawdry and inappropriate practices which were confirmed once again this week in Texas.

Why don't you sit dowm scratch your head and realize that anyone with an I.Q. over 80 probably hates your guts. You guys are phase one of Federal goverment intrusion. I hope to hell this country hasn't gone so soft as to take this without a harsh push back. What you are doing is arguably treason. Clear userpation of the Bill of rights 4th and 10th ammendments.Starting to see exercising the 1st ammendment as arrestable in airports too.

Some people say that x-ray backscatter is safe, some say it is not safe. The jury is still out on this issue. Given this the TSA should do the following:(1) Everyone to be given a CHOICE (not a coercive opt-out) of either body scan OR a metal detector and ordinary pat-down ( no genital groping) and a sniffer dog search. If there is ANY doubt about the safety ( European Parliament want to ban x-ray backscatter on safety grounds) and privacy ( millimetre wave is less privacy intrusive)of x-ray backscatter then passengers must be allowed to choose not to be scanned - opt-out is not a genuine choice it is threatening and coercive.

Hrmm .005 millirem. So, at 60 scans an hour, 8 hrs a day, 5 days a week, how many cancerous growths are created in the TSO screener standing too close to the scanner? How many cases of testicular/ovarian cancer will be traceable to poorly shielded carry-on baggage scanners? Has the TSA even considered the exposure/time/dosage danger that exists?

Until there is a dosimeter monitoring program in place, the TSA is playing fast and loose with the safety of the flying public and placing their employees in danger.

This is not a comparative analysis of what generates how much radiation, it is a listing of all the sources of exposure to radiation.

Exposure is cumulative. I drink six glass of water a day so that is approximately .1 millirem. Due to family health history I receive a chest x-ray annually so there is an additional 10. Same with Dental x-rays so there is some more radiation. Just living on earth gives me about 1 more annually. I am already up to an average of 16 millirems of exposure annually. And now you want to to assume the position of submission and stand in your scanner and add to that exposure? And, at least at my local airport, everyone has to get scanned twice so double the exposure and all for what? It has been pointed out again and again that these scanners are less effective at finding things that can bring down a plane, which is the reason you have them in the first place.

Can TSA produce documents that certify all levels of radiation output of the back scatter x ray has been approved by EPA, FDA, and OSHA as being historically proven non-hazardous to use on reproductive organs, babies, pregnant mothers, and the elderly? From articles I have read, I see that; "A passenger is scanned by rastering or moving a single high energy x-ray beam rapidly over their form." Does the device utilize a HIGH ENERGY X-RAY BEAM? Are there any sources that can alay fears of potential harm from these x-rays? Are there any studies that prove it is not hazardous to reproductive organs, pregnant women, babies, children, and elderly after single or repeated exposures? Should lead shields be issued passengers and should the TSA staff near the machines be wearing radiation exposure tags?

Such a great article which One year of naturally occurring background radiation 300 millirem Annual recommended limit to the public of radiation from man-made sources. In which Drinking three glasses of water a day for a year 0.045 millirem One backscatter X-ray scan Approximately 0.005 millirem. Thanks for sharing this article.